9/1/2009 SF: "Just Plane Fun"

24 posts / 0 new
Last post

This thread is for discussion of this week's Serious Fun, which goes live Tuesday morning on magicthegathering.com.

Assuming I know the rules/read the card right, didn't brian cheat on that Whiplash Trap?


Whiplash Trap reads "If an opponent has had two or more creatures enter the battlefield under his or her control". Enter the battlefield is literally "enters play" correct? Technically insurrection doesn't put anything into play, just gains control of what is already IN play (or on the battlefield). Thus meaning that you would have to pay full price.


I'm just not 100% sure of the rules on what counts as 'entering the battlefield under control'.


EDIT: Nevermind, I misread the article. I thought you said 'had A mana untapped' not just 'had mana untapped'. The question stands though, would you be able to cast the trap at a lower cost?

Mafia History (Most Fun and/or Favorites listed)
SoM Mafia - Mirran-Aligned Mason - Killed Night 5 - Mafia win Iron Maiden Mafia (Classic) - Mafia-aligned Vanilla - Lived - Mafia Win - MVP PK Hates you (Int) - Mafia Don - Lived - Mafia Flawless Victory Toxic Waste Mafia (PC#3) - Mafia-aligned Roleblocker turned Hive-aligned Roleblocker - Hive win - MVP Basic #4: The Orchard Tree Mafia - Town-aligned Apple - Killed Night 4 - Mafia Win Mono has Mono, the privates story - Mafia-aligned Godfather - Lived - Mafia Win Touhou: Border Collapse (PC#4) - Sakuya Izayoi - Died Night 2 - Mafia win Tales of Symphonia (Int+) - Presea Combatir, Taciturn Girl - Lived - Town Win Sunflowers for Ragnarokio (PC#5) - In progress

I think the 2+ creatures clause only affects the alternate casting cost. He could still cast it for 5.


I think Kelly may have accidently cheated, though. I'm not sure, but I think Bant's chaos ability only makes the creature indestructible on Bant.

"We will all be purified in Wurm. What is good will be used to heal Wurm, or grow Wurm, or to fuel Wurm's path. What is vile will be extruded, and we will be free of it forever." --Prophet of the Cult of Wurm


I think the 2+ creatures clause only affects the alternate casting cost. He could still cast it for 5.


I think Kelly may have accidently cheated, though. I'm not sure, but I think Bant's chaos ability only makes the creature indestructible on Bant.




You're right that the 2+ creatures clause only has to do with affecting the alternate cost, not whether or not you can play it. Also, gaining control of creatures would not count towards the two creatures for that alt-cost, because changing controllers doesn't cause anything to enter the battlefield.


You should try actually reading the Bant plane, however. Maybe then you'd know about what you speak. Until you read the card (pictured in the article), please do not reply.

MTG Rules Advisor Mirrodin_Loyalty.png

At one level, Planechase sounds like a great game.


 


But then I think... it requires the other folk to have bought into Planechase (to get the most out of it)and given the smaller playing population (by definition smaller than the magic-playing population), I'm not sure it's worth the dosh.


 


But then... I would like the release card and to be 'there at the start'...

Is there ANY way to get the new forums to not quadruple-space my posts?


 


I dunno, Kelly - the fact that you could mix up the plane decks without even noticing means that:


 - yes, the game is fun enough with any random set of planes, but


 - why didn't the game just work off of a shared stack of Plane cards to begin with?


 




I think the 2+ creatures clause only affects the alternate casting cost. He could still cast it for 5.


I think Kelly may have accidently cheated, though. I'm not sure, but I think Bant's chaos ability only makes the creature indestructible on Bant.




You're right that the 2+ creatures clause only has to do with affecting the alternate cost, not whether or not you can play it. Also, gaining control of creatures would not count towards the two creatures for that alt-cost, because changing controllers doesn't cause anything to enter the battlefield.


You should try actually reading the Bant plane, however. Maybe then you'd know about what you speak. Until you read the card (pictured in the article), please do not reply.




I don't know, I have read it, and I'm not 100% clear on whether the indestructibiliity lasts after you leave the plane.  Since "As long as the card has a divinity counter on it..." is actually written on the plane, and not in the Comp Rules, I think the original poster was more likely correct.


So do you give all your rules advice in that same disdainful tone?


I don't know, I have read it, and I'm not 100% clear on whether the indestructibiliity lasts after you leave the plane.  Since "As long as the card has a divinity counter on it..." is actually written on the plane, and not in the Comp Rules, I think the original poster was more likely correct.




As far as I can see, the card is setting up a static effect with a duration. That duration is "As long as the card has a divinity counter on it". It doesn't matter if the ability setting up that static effect disappears, it will last for the stated duration, e.g. until the card no longer has a divinity counter.


Let's be honest, it would be a fairly useless ability if it DID only last while they were on Bant, especially given how quickly they were changing planes in this game!

To be definitive about it, the indestructibility granted by Bant's chaos ability does last after the plane changes. The reason for it is that the indestructibility clause is part of the Chaos ability itself, in the same parapragh. The resolution of the ability does set a duration for the effect, as Factotum said, which lasts as long as the counter stays.


For it not to last after planeswalking away from Bant, the card would have to have a separate static ability stating "Creatures with divinity counters on them are indestructible" such as the one on That Which Was Taken.


You should try actually reading the Bant plane, however. Maybe then you'd know about what you speak. Until you read the card (pictured in the article), please do not reply.


I think this was borderline disrespectful. You have to understand that not everyone has a firm enough grasp of the rules to actually get what I explained above by themselves with certainty, despite reading the card several times. You should explain to people what they're missing / misunderstanding instead of basically saying what sounds like "Go read the card again before posting, fool, it's soooo obvious". No, it's not obvious to people who are not rules experts like you and I. I really hope you don't answer to your local fellow players or on Rules Q&A forums with that attitude. This is unworthy of an Advisor.

Magic The Gathering DCI Lvl 1 Judge Don't hesitate to post rules question in the Rules Q&A forum for me and other competent advisors to answer : http://community.wizards.com/go/forum/view/75842/134778/Rules_Q38A


To be definitive about it, the indestructibility granted by Bant's chaos ability does last after the plane changes. The reason for it is that the indestructibility clause is part of the Chaos ability itself, in the same parapragh. The resolution of the ability does set a duration for the effect, as Factotum said, which lasts as long as the counter stays.




I was hoping this would be the case, but was not sure because divinity counters do not have any inherent rules baggage, and the way it was written looked like a static ability assigning the indestructible ability to creatures with divinity counters on them.

"We will all be purified in Wurm. What is good will be used to heal Wurm, or grow Wurm, or to fuel Wurm's path. What is vile will be extruded, and we will be free of it forever." --Prophet of the Cult of Wurm

In before "You just fell for my trap card." 


Traps seem like a nice concept though.  Everyone loves paying less for things, and I'm assuming there'll be some that better players will have to decide if they want to wait for the alternate cost, or just pay the casting cost.


Also, this article really makes Planechase look enjoyable.

I was hoping this would be the case, but was not sure because divinity counters do not have any inherent rules baggage, and the way it was written looked like a static ability assigning the indestructible ability to creatures with divinity counters on them.


It's just like Aven Mimeomancer. The source of the ability doesn't have to be around for a "stated duration" effect to keep affecting something as long as the duration hasn't ended.


@Madmageqc: Maybe I was borderline disrespectful, but that's because I don't like people chiming in on how the rules works when they don't know the rules. Leave that to those of us who do know the rules and don't try to correct things when you don't. It saves everyone a bunch of time. I have no problem with people who don't know the rules asking questions to learn, but trying to correct someone when you don't know the rules irks me. If you don't like me doing that, then don't try to correct people on the rules until you yourself know them, then I won't do it to you. (You in this paragraph being the general "you," not specifically you, madmage.)

MTG Rules Advisor Mirrodin_Loyalty.png

@Kedar: Alternatively, I can block you by going to your profile and selecting "block user". That way, you can continue to be a disrespectful jerk, and I don't have to see it. Everybody wins!


Hooray tech!

"We will all be purified in Wurm. What is good will be used to heal Wurm, or grow Wurm, or to fuel Wurm's path. What is vile will be extruded, and we will be free of it forever." --Prophet of the Cult of Wurm

Well I know you can't see it, Jazzy, but to anyone else reading this stuff: Don't question someone else or try to answer rules questions incorrectly and I won't berate you. It's simple, really. In other words: Learn the rules before you pretend to know them.

MTG Rules Advisor Mirrodin_Loyalty.png

I really hope you don't answer to your local fellow players or on Rules Q&A forums with that attitude. This is unworthy of an Advisor.


He has, actually, responded in this manner. It may just be his inundation in the Rules Q&A, where a defense of dickishness is in fact being on the Rules Q&A forum. I would request anyone wanting to learn how to respond and react to players to read the responses and thouroughness of zammm and natedogg there, as they appear to be the pinnacle of concise- and politeness, as well as steeped in the necessary level of accuracy.

"Possibilities abound, too numerous to count." "Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969) "Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion Backs)


Is there ANY way to get the new forums to not quadruple-space my posts?


 


I dunno, Kelly - the fact that you could mix up the plane decks without even noticing means that:


 - yes, the game is fun enough with any random set of planes, but


 - why didn't the game just work off of a shared stack of Plane cards to begin with?


 




Regarding the spacing, I actually kinda like that, helps keep people from posting in wall-o-text format.


 


As for the plane cards, does seem odd that you don't just use a shared deck of them, but I imagine they set it the way they did for those players that would pull their hair out at the thought of their cards getting mixed with somebody elses.

Proud member of C.A.R.D. - Campaign Against Rare Duals "...but the time has come when lands just need to be better. Creatures have gotten stronger, spells have always been insane, and lands just sat in this awkward place of necessity." Jacob Van Lunen on the refuge duals, 16 Sep 2009. "While it made thematic sense to separate enemy and allied color fixing in the past, we have come around to the definite conclusion that it is just plain incorrect from a game-play perspective. This is one of these situations where game play should just trump flavor." - Sam Stoddard on ending the separation of allied/enemy dual lands. 05 July 2013

Since when does anyone of you decide what is worthy of being a Rules Advisor? Here's a hint: You don't, and you never did. You have this misconception that being helpful to players means being nice to everyone all the time. Here's another hint: That's not the case. I will answer questions politely (for the most part; I've had a few spats of times when I was rude and I've apologized for those times already). Someone acting like they know the rules when they have not yet learned them, however, is not something to which I'll respond with politeness. I can be polite--just don't do anything to deserve me being impolite, and you won't see it. So before you start acting like you know the rules, learn them, and there will be no problems.

MTG Rules Advisor Mirrodin_Loyalty.png

Since when does anyone of you decide what is worthy of being a Rules Advisor? Here's a hint: You don't, and you never did. You have this misconception that being helpful to players means being nice to everyone all the time. Here's another hint: That's not the case. I will answer questions politely (for the most part; I've had a few spats of times when I was rude and I've apologized for those times already). Someone acting like they know the rules when they have not yet learned them, however, is not something to which I'll respond with politeness. I can be polite--just don't do anything to deserve me being impolite, and you won't see it. So before you start acting like you know the rules, learn them, and there will be no problems.


Nice thread you got here going about yourself, mate. Are other rules advisors as rude and megalomaniac as you are? Just asking. I don't want to ever go to a rules advice thread and get my butt kicked for asking legitimate questions.

Oh, and a little hint for you: asking questions and having them answered is the best way of learning (be it rules or other things).

Manaug.gif | Manawu.gif | Manau.gif | Manaub.gif | Manaur.gif


Since when does anyone of you decide what is worthy of being a Rules Advisor? Here's a hint: You don't, and you never did. You have this misconception that being helpful to players means being nice to everyone all the time. Here's another hint: That's not the case. I will answer questions politely (for the most part; I've had a few spats of times when I was rude and I've apologized for those times already). Someone acting like they know the rules when they have not yet learned them, however, is not something to which I'll respond with politeness. I can be polite--just don't do anything to deserve me being impolite, and you won't see it. So before you start acting like you know the rules, learn them, and there will be no problems.


Nice thread you got here going about yourself, mate. Are other rules advisors as rude and megalomaniac as you are? Just asking. I don't want to ever go to a rules advice thread and get my butt kicked for asking legitimate questions.

Oh, and a little hint for you: asking questions and having them answered is the best way of learning (be it rules or other things).




Maybe you should learn to read. I said asking questions is fine and I won't be rude for it. I also said that acting like you know the rules when you don't yet know the rules (because you haven't learned by, say, asking questions) is when I'll be rude.


Go back and read that paragraph a few times before you reply again, please. That way maybe your response will actually make sense in context with what I said.

MTG Rules Advisor Mirrodin_Loyalty.png

Sorry, mate. You're not worth the trouble. Plus, you're ruining the thread for other people with your justifications, so I'm not helping you do that anymore.

Manaug.gif | Manawu.gif | Manau.gif | Manaub.gif | Manaur.gif


Sorry, mate. You're not worth the trouble. Plus, you're ruining the thread for other people with your justifications, so I'm not helping you do that anymore.




That's very amusing, considering you don't come to this "noble" conclusion till after I've pointed out all the flaws in your argument against me. Did you really think you'd fool anyone with that poor attempt to save face?

MTG Rules Advisor Mirrodin_Loyalty.png

That's very amusing, considering you don't come to this "noble" conclusion till after I've pointed out all the flaws in your argument against me. Did you really think you'd fool anyone with that poor attempt to save face?


Oh, snap. You've got me. My sneaky plan to "save face" has failed because of your unrivalled intellect.


...


Or maybe I just don't want to continue an off-topic conversation with an ego-maniacal stranger who even fails to see what an all-around jerk he's being. See you later.

Manaug.gif | Manawu.gif | Manau.gif | Manaub.gif | Manaur.gif


That's very amusing, considering you don't come to this "noble" conclusion till after I've pointed out all the flaws in your argument against me. Did you really think you'd fool anyone with that poor attempt to save face?


Oh, snap. You've got me. My sneaky plan to "save face" has failed because of your unrivalled intellect.


...


Or maybe I just don't want to continue an off-topic conversation with an ego-maniacal stranger who even fails to see what an all-around jerk he's being. See you later.




It's sadly obvious about your attempts to save face; your little "fails to see what an all-around jerk he's being" is more of that obvious attempt. I do know I'm a jerk to people who deserve it; I make no attempt to hide this fact, and if you'd actually been reading my posts, you'd know that. I'm not nice to people who don't deserve it.


Once again, fail on the pathetic attempt to save face by acting "noble."

MTG Rules Advisor Mirrodin_Loyalty.png

Kedar do you realize that if your conduct causes forum spanning fights that you are most likely the problem? And also that entire thing you do with the accusing people of saving face when they clarify is absolutely ridiculous and played out?


Kedar do you realize that if your conduct causes forum spanning fights that you are most likely the problem? And also that entire thing you do with the accusing people of saving face when they clarify is absolutely ridiculous and played out?




Oh, yes, I'm aware I'm perpetuating the problem of these arguments, but that's because I'm in the right (as usual).


I don't let people finish an argument with incorrect statements or attempts to lie, and I will call them on it when they do it. I don't really care if it causes arguments, because I'm not going to let idiots and liars continue to be idiotic or lie, if I can help it. Don't like it, you can ignore me or stop coming to the forums.


Also, I accuse them of saving face because it's rather obvious. "I'm going to argue with you till you point out a huge flaw in my argument and then suddenly I'm noble enough to discontinue the argument." Totally coincidental, right?

MTG Rules Advisor Mirrodin_Loyalty.png

Sign In to post comments